All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, (1) the receipt of rebates: The Defendant did not agree to receive rebates from Q and Z. ② The Defendant did not agree to receive the payment for the employment of regular teachers: The Defendant did not agree to receive the payment for the employment of P, Q and regular teachers. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges in this part of the charges, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles. (2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment and additional collection, KRW 11,542,866)

B. Prosecutor 1) In around 2008, the crime of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty part) was committed for offering of bribe, P, which was the head of the ATU and BI guidance of the Gyeong-gu Office of Education, shall assist the Defendant’s H school in allocating 4 billion won’s facility construction cost budget to the Defendant’s H school, and in return, the Defendant employed P’s wife and two children L, etc.

Therefore, the defendant granted a bribe equivalent to the employment profit in relation to P's act of duty.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

B) The S and R led to the solicitation of embezzlement of occupational embezzlement, i.e., embezzlement of the Defendant and H school expenses, and each of the above statements is credibility. Some of the money in the account used for embezzlement of school expenses was used in the interest on the Defendant’s personal loan, card use amount, etc., and was remitted to a place designated by the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled H school expenses in collusion with S and R. Accordingly, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, which was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and in light of the settlement place, amount, etc. under the usage of each corporate card by U and T (hereinafter “T”), the Defendant used each corporate card for personal use.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted all of the facts charged is erroneous or erroneous.